Draft Council Regulation amending Council Regulation (EEC) No.
3922/91 on the harmonisation of technical requirements and
administrative procedures in the field of civil aviation.

Legal base:

Article 80(2) EC; co-decision; qualified majority voting

Department:

Environment, Transport and the Regions

Basis of consideration:

SEM of 5 December 2000

Previous Committee Report:

HC 23-xviii (1999-2000), paragraph 6 (17 May 2000)

To be discussed in Council:

20-21 December 2000

Committee's assessment:

Politically important

Committee's decision:

Cleared, but information on progress requested

Background

10.1 The Joint Aviation Authority (JAA)
is an associate body of the European Civil Aviation Conference
and has been developing harmonised aviation safety standards since
1970. EC law requires Member States to belong to the JAA. A large
number of the JAA requirements (JARs) have been adopted as the
relevant EC standard and these are contained in Annex II to Regulation
3922/91.

10.2 In 1995, the JAA adopted harmonised
standards (JAR-OPS) for public transport aircraft.

10.3 Earlier this year, the Commission proposed
an amendment to Regulation 3922/91 in order to introduce harmonised
safety standards for public transport aircraft operations. The
Commission decided not simply to transpose the JAR-OPS requirements
into Community law. It argued that some parts of the JAR-OPS were
incompatible with Community law and policies and that some interested
parties were not entirely happy with the detail of the JAR-OPS.

10.4 We reported on the proposal on 17 May
2000. We noted that the Minister intended to provide a Supplementary
Explanatory Memorandum when the Government and the Civil Aviation
Authority had had an opportunity to consider the proposal in more
depth and after a Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) had been
completed. We left the document uncleared, pending receipt of
the Minister's further advice and the RIA. We invited him to comment
on the Commission's views on the compatibility of JAR-OPS with
Community law and policies and on the merits or otherwise of any
departure from JAR-OPS standards in the proposal. We also asked
whether there were any implications arising from the Commission's
approach for the Community's external competence in this field.

The Minister's Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum

10.5 In his Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum
of 5 December, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the
Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr Chris
Mullin) explains the differences between the JAR-OPS document
and the Commission's technical proposals based on JAR-OPS. The
Commission has argued that cross-references in the JAR-OPS to
other Joint Aviation Requirements which have not yet been adopted
under Regulation 3922/91 cannot be included in the EU legislation
because that legislation cannot require compliance with a specific
document which is not already referenced in European law. The
Government accepts this argument. Instead references are made
to the "applicable rules" or "requirements"
in the relevant field. The Minister also refers to some other
technical areas where there are discrepancies between JAR-OPS
and existing EU regulations and notes that the JAA is considering
amendments to JAR-OPS to bring them into line with proposed EU
requirements. The Commission proposal also includes requirements
on cosmic radiation monitoring which are not included at present
in JAR-OPS but, again, the Minister says that the JAA is already
consulting on similar amendments.

10.6 As regards external competence, the
Minister says that the Community already has competence in the
field of aviation safety through regulation 3922/91. That regulation
already sets out in Annex II common Community technical requirements
in the fields covered. The regulation provides for the Council
to adopt more such requirements on the basis of Commission proposals.
As such requirements are added  as the Commission now proposes
 Community competence automatically increases and Member
States' competence decreases. But this is simply extending the
ambit of an existing area of Community external competence.

10.7 The Minister says that the French Presidency
has proposed a number of discussions in Council working groups,
which have led to some proposed amendments, and will be pressing
for a Common Position to be adopted at the Transport Council on
20-21 December. He says the most significant amendments relate
to:

inclusion within the proposal of requirements
on operators to ensure that cabin crew are properly trained. These
requirements had been put forward in a separate draft directive
on safety requirements and attestation of professional competence
for cabin crew which we cleared on 21 April 1999. The Minister
says that these requirements, as now included in the current proposal,
meet many of the Government's concerns;

the date for bringing the technical requirements
into force, which will be set at least six months later than that
for the regulation as a whole. This delay will provide time to
ensure that the technical details are brought into line with the
most recent version of the JAR-OPS.

10.8 The RIA the Minister has provided says
that, as the majority of UK airlines are already operating to
JAR-OPS requirements, there will no compliance cost for them if
this proposal is adopted. The majority of small businesses, operating
as air taxi services, have not yet moved on to JAR-OPS requirements.
They would be required to do so if the proposal were adopted,
though they would in due course have had to meet the JAR-OPS requirements
anyway. Over 50 of these operators would incur average annual
costs of around £2,500 to £20,000 per company. The RIA
notes that adoption of directly applicable operations standards
through the regulation will ensure that all EC operators apply
the same high safety standards as those required by UK operators
and that it is in the commercial interests of UK operators that
its competitors should have to meet the same standards.

Conclusion

10.9 We thank the Minister for his further
advice. On the issue of external competence, what the Minister
says seems to be consistent with the ERTA[25]
principle (which states that the adoption of internal measures
by the Community can give rise by implication to a power to act
externally in the area covered by the measures). We recognise
that there may be difficulties which prevent the adoption of a
Common Position on 22-21 December. We ask the Minister to let
us know the outcome of the discussion at that meeting. However
we are content to clear the document.